Hunter: not young earther. Agnostic-age earther?

This projection on Hunter’s part (that evolution is religion) is actually another aspect of the projection of jealousy onto a deity. It is simply the old lust for power, anger over not having it, and a pent up rage to wrest it from those one is jealous of.

Looking over Hunter’s jealous diatribes reveals that, like all ID/creationists whatever their particular stripes, he always gets the science wrong.

Apparently that doesn’t matter to him. His blind jealousy of scientists makes it impossible for him to understand what gives them what he himself doesn't have; namely, insight into how Nature actually works.

"...he thinks that anyone who draws any conclusions about anything being the result of a natural process is implicitly and illegitimately assuming “God wouldn’t have done it that way” and is thus religious –"

So then, how exactly could one not be "religious"? If you say God would have done it that way, then you are definately being religious. If you say that God wouldn't have done it that way, you are also being "religious"! Therefore, no matter what you say, you will be labelled as "religious". So then, how can being "religious" be a bad thing, if that is the only possibllity?

Once again the absurditites of creationism are revealed when they try to claim that science or evolution is religion. Yea, sure, and ice cream is treason.

What if you just say "It seems to have happened this way, and natural processes explain it pretty well. Maybe God was there, maybe she wasn't, we can't tell."

Being noncommittal on the age of the earth is just as much a give-away as being noncommittal on the shape of the earth.

fnxtr said: What if you just say "It seems to have happened this way, and natural processes explain it pretty well. Maybe God was there, maybe she wasn't, we can't tell."

Does Cornelius Hunter even know what he's talking about?

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/11/de-novo-genes-what-are-chances.html

It looks to me like the commenter "Duke" made Mr. Hunter look kinda silly.

So then, how exactly could one not be “religious”? If you say God would have done it that way, then you are definately being religious.

Flint wrote:

"But if you point out objectively, according to the evidence, exactly what god DID, this isn’t religion at all."

But if you point out objectively, according to the evidence, exactly what we see in nature, this isn’t religion at all. At least if you make no assumptions about the existence of a God or gods and you make no assumptions about nature being created by a God or gods.

There, fixed that for you.

That having been written, I agree. The underlying and unspoken assumption here is that my views are not religion because they are correct and your views are religion because the are wrong. What hypocricy.

Corny is just a typical religious Lying for Jesus nut-job. Ask him about his use of coloring book pictures to try and claim that a thalycine and a wolf are the same... and the pictures were actually a thalycine, and ITS REVERSE MIRROR IMAGE!!! (I believe Wes caught him red-handed in this deception.)

Well Corny? Were you lying to us then, or lying to us now?

Evolution is a "religion" because (in in the theology of my particular cult) it denies God and therefore expresses a theological opinion.

Creationism is not a religion because it might actually be right (because it can never be proved wrong); and therefore, it is a legitimate secular argument.

Ah hum ... some more additions to the "Fundie Dictionary" project ...

After the extreme embarrassment of Thylacine-gate, it seems to me that nobody needs to bother with anything that Hunter has to say. He obviously has no shame.

John wrote:

"Evolution is a “religion” because (in in the theology of my particular cult) it denies God and therefore expresses a theological opinion."

Some people may actually think so. Thing is, it matters not what the theology of any particular cult claims. What matters is what modern evolutionary biology claims. Of course, modern evolutionary biology makes no theological claims one way or the other. The claims of any cult therefore cannot affect the teaching of evolution in public schools, they can only affect the teaching of the cult in public schools.

The thing about tortured logic is, you have to torture the people who interpret and enforce the laws in order for it to have any effect on the law.

Oh I see they have a thread for Mr. Hunter at AtBC

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4b1af1525b1bcc1f;act=ST;f=14;t=4254;st=0

Apparently he's some sort of an expert at not answering Lenny Flank's questions. :P

He's at the DI.

The question isn't whether he is utterly wrong about everything always (he is) but which of his lies for the cause and the faith he is conscious of making at the time of their utterance.
As he and his "fellows" have no power and no influence, it's basically a game, now. Their only real concern is avoiding getting real jobs. Our only real concern is what entertainment value they provide.

We would get much higher value if they were de-funded, though. What would WD do without even this sliver of a publinc spotlight? Something VERY funny to regain it, I'd bet.

The Curmudgeon said: Being noncommittal on the age of the earth is just as much a give-away as being noncommittal on the shape of the earth.

386sx said: Does Cornelius Hunter even know what he's talking about? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/11/de-novo-genes-what-are-chances.html It looks to me like the commenter "Duke" made Mr. Hunter look kinda silly.

Corney wrote (in the thread linked above):

"Religion drives science and it matters."

Great. Just about five hundred years too late. Has this guy read any history in the last five hundred years? Obviously he hasn't read any science in the last five hundred years.

I agree with Rolf, that Duke guy was awesome. He "zeroed" in precisely on the fatal flaw in the Hunter argument and demonstrated exactly why it was eroneous. If Corney wants to calculate a meaningful probability, why doesn't he calculate the probability that he will ever be bothered to learn even the basics of modern genetics. Now that would be a number with lots of zeros!

His religion may drive his science, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to notice. Now, which approach do you think has been more successful? (Hint: don't forget to include the last five hundred years).

What if one god would have done it one way, but another god would have done it another way?

mark wrote:

"What if one god would have done it one way, but another god would have done it another way?"

Great. Then all you have to do is figure out the motivation and capabilities of all of the potential dieties and determine which one, (or ones,) is most likely responsible.

Of course, in order for a god of any type to be responsible, it would have to have some reason for creating life to look exactly the way one would expect if it had evolved. That means that the most dishonest and deceitful diety was most likely responsible. Let me know how that works out for you.

Rolf Aalberg said:

386sx said: Does Cornelius Hunter even know what he's talking about? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/11/de-novo-genes-what-are-chances.html It looks to me like the commenter "Duke" made Mr. Hunter look kinda silly.

That's one of the better threads I've read for a long time. Duke's arguments are so clear and easy to follow even for a non-scientist like me while it seems Hunter is doing his best to not understand. And that is quite understandable; if he should arrive at a proper understanding of genetics his carefully constructed house of cards would crumble. We see that same kind of creationist ignorance all the time; they just don't bother to learn science. I believe the reason is they are so certain of being right that they don't think they have anything to learn from science, they have fallen for their own propaganda.

I have noticed over the last several years that a lot of young earth creationists love to hide the fact that they either believe in young earth creationism (the religious doctrine that the universe and the earth were created around 6,000 or so years ago) or at least seriously think that young earth creationism is scientifically plausible (i.e., that modern geological science is drastically, fundamentally wrong). I believe the motivation for this is this: They know that being open about being a young earth creationist (or considering that it's scientifically plausible) will cause the people they're dealing with to immediately know that they have less than zero scientific credibility (because their critics know, of course, that anyone who takes young earth creationism seriously is immediately revealing his ignorance and/or incompetence regarding the relevant areas of science), and they'll be ridiculed for it.

Of course, what they're failing to deal with is that the ignorance/incompetence demonstrated by taking the idea of young earth creationism seriously demonstrates further that they simply can't be taken seriously about anything they have to say about any scientific issues at all, because it is a demonstration of some fundamental flaws in their thinking processes when it comes to their choosing to believe in religious dogma regardless of rational analysis and empirical evidence, and then opposing rational analysis and empirical evidence when it contradicts what they believe.

Cornelius HUnter is almost certainly a YEC and almost certainly lying about it.

YECs are trained to lie about being YECs. They usually say, "I don't know." What they mean is, "I don't want to sound even dumber than usual so I'll lie."

Don't let them get away with crap like that. Push them on it.

People who use outright lies to support a position like Hunter and the YECs have already lost. They know it is a bunch of mythological nonsense and one or hundred more lies won't matter.

Since Corny apparently believes that every molecule of chloroplast DNA in every cell of every corn plant has exactly the same nucleotide sequence, he must be a very, very, very young earth creationist. Last Thursday might not even do it!

Given that, it would seem completely unnecessary for him to hide his denial of the age of the earth. Anyone who knew anything should already have written him off scientifically long ago.

386sx said: Yeah, Cornelius, "the Ph.D. adjunct professor of biophysics", pretends like he is baffled by Duke's "platonic ideal" objection. That is some comedy gold, folks.

Cornelius HUnter is almost certainly a YEC and almost certainly lying about it.

wasn't hunter the guy that tried to use the same picture for thylacines and wolves in some presentation a while back?

i seem to recall several of us reaming him a new one on ATBC?

maybe a couple years ago now?

...many posts taking on Immanuel Kant

oh, sing it with me now...

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable..."

fnxtr said: What if you just say "It seems to have happened this way, and natural processes explain it pretty well. Maybe God was there, maybe she wasn't, we can't tell."

The other question some YECs hate is, "Do you believe Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs?"

The YECs that are trying to look intelligent and educated will waffle around and refuse to answer it. They know it makes them look silly.

Be sure to ask it often and don't let them evade the question.

It is a central story of their religion. God ineptly creates humans in his own image so they are also inept. Then he genocides all but 8 in an attempt to improve them. That didn't work so he sent his kid down to be nailed to a tree. So how did that work? The next step in god's improvement program to fix his original design flaws is another genocide.

For an all powerful being, he certainly seems to have trouble getting things to work. Someone tell me again, why the fundie god is worth worshipping?

I had to look up Forrest Mims.
Wiki says: "In December, 2008 Discover Magazine named Mims one of the "50 Best Brains in Science."

I guess this is where the clever posters at PandasThumb follow up with, "but, but, but..."

Markz said: I had to look up Forrest Mims. Wiki says: "In December, 2008 Discover Magazine named Mims one of the "50 Best Brains in Science." I guess this is where the clever posters at PandasThumb follow up with, "but, but, but..."

Mike Elzinga said:

386sx said: Yeah, Cornelius, "the Ph.D. adjunct professor of biophysics", pretends like he is baffled by Duke's "platonic ideal" objection. That is some comedy gold, folks.

Unfortunately this is just the kind of mud wrestling ID/creationists love; it gets them points among their following that they can never get from the science community. The original post by Hunter is a taunt to lure in someone whose “respectability” will then rub off on Hunter in the ensuing “scientific” debate over Hunter’s pseudo-science. In every “discussion” with an ID/creationist I have ever seen (literally hundreds of them), the ID/creationist always manages to keep the discussion going on extreme and irrelevant minutia. One can never get them to describe their understanding of fundamental scientific concepts. And you certainly cannot get them to explain the mechanisms of their own “theories”.

So: my new position is that Cornelius Hunter is an agnostic-on-the-age-of-the-earth creationist. As I’ve noted before, this position is quite possibly even more ridiculous than young-earth creationism itself. If I’m wrong, all Hunter has to do to refute me is tell us how old he thinks the Earth is, and why.

— Nick Matzke

Forrest Mims wikipedia: Forrest M. Mims III is an amateur scientist[1] and magazine columnist and the author of the popular Engineer's Mini-Notebook series of instructional books originally sold in Radio Shack electronics stores. Deleted for length In December, 2008 Discover Magazine named Mims one of the "50 Best Brains in Science."[4] Mims is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the National Science Teachers Association and several scientific societies. Forrest Mims is also an advocate for Intelligent design and serves as a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design and the Discovery Institute.[5][6] He is also a skeptic of global warming.[7][8]

Markz also "forgot" to mention Discover's alleged article was actually a collection of five different ones:

• 5 Lifetime Achievers who have revolutionized their fields: Noam Chomsky, Vinton Cerf, Stephen Hawking, E.O. Wilson, and Edward Witten

• 10 Most Influential People in Science

• 20 Best Scientists Under 40

• 5 Prodigy Scientists Under 20

and...

• 10 Amateur Scientists Who Might Cure Cancer — From Their Basements

Mims was listed in the last group. A group created because Discover wants to encourage amateurs.

[Mims] is also a skeptic of global warming.[7][8]

No, "therefore Meher Baba."

Markz said: No, "therefore Meher Baba."

Hunter fits all of the criteria I know about for a good ol' fashion country kook.

What strikes me most strongly about these people is that they are agnostic not just about evolution or the age of the earth or whatever; they are simply indifferent to science and the values that it has come to adopt.

This underscores for me that The Controversy is essentially a social and political one. Science is just a weapon to be used or abused as may be convenient. That the logical conclusion of creationism would be to debase a fundamental component of modern economies and societies is probably why the more rational (however otherwise disagreeable) part of their political movements have never seriously adopted creationism as part of their political program. The thinking is along the lines "the rubes can have Noah in science class, they don't become scientists anyway, but keep your hands off my Genentech shares!". It's cynical, but very effective.

I guess this is Cornelius's promised reply to Duke:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/12/evolutionists-t-urf13-silence-day-10.html

He's still completely ignoring what everybody said. (So, I would guess he just wants to irritate people and get blog hits and sell books and stuff.)

This underscores for me that The Controversy is essentially a social and political one.

— Amadan

I personally suspect (but can’t prove, not being a mind reader) that anyone who plays “don’t ask, don’t tell” privately knows that the entire mainstream timeline, and common descent, if not all of evolution, is the only explanation that makes sense. But they can’t admit that because of a prior commitment to the big tent.

This is obvious, because as I’ve mentioned several times, the only coherent reason to oppose the theory of evolution is a belief that everyone must accept YEC or be damned. Otherwise, if some portions of any or all translations of the Bible can be interpreted as symbolic or metaphorical, acceptance of the theory of evolution is no more sinful than belief in anything else that deviates from a “literal interpretation of Genesis”. There’s simply no logical advantage to any sort of “OEC” position. If a “literal reading of Genesis” is required for salvation, it won’t save you, and if a “literal reading of Genesis” is not required for salvation, there’s no religious advantage for denying scientific evidence.

— harold

Until the 20th century...

"[Duke sez]'So, Cornelius, are you claiming that the maize mitochondrial genome is completely static and inert, that no recombination or re-arrangements can possibly occur?'

[to which Hunter replies]'No, I'm not saying that. In fact, my point is that it is, indeed, these mechanisms, more than mutation, that one might appeal to in order to explain how the de novo gene might have arisen.'"

See, it's not mutation, it's recombination and re-arrangement.

Pfffff.

Even if Hunter uses the term "mutation" to mean only "single DNA base replacement", so what? Reshuffling the deck is still a natural occurence, no divine intervention intelligent design needed.

Loser.

[to which Hunter replies]’No, I’m not saying that. In fact, my point is that it is, indeed, these mechanisms, more than mutation, that one might appeal to in order to explain how the de novo gene might have arisen.’”

— fnxtr

For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be modelled and built by God? What materials, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air, fire, water, and earth, pay obedience and submit to the will of the architect? From whence arose those five forms, of which the rest were composed, so aptly contributing to frame the mind and produce the senses? It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered.

It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered.

Cicero said:

"It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered."

Agreed. Now that was one smart dude. However, he could have gone on to say that, in all of the history of humanity, the thing that is most desired is often the least likely to be discovered.

But - and I’m getting deja vu too - there’s nothing special about the heliocentric YEC that’s a 20-th century concoction. Whether the others are “damned” or merely “expelled,” those who accept heliocentric YEC are themselves conceding some interpretations as metaphorical. Why not play it safe and go all the way to geocentrism or flat-earthism?

The message of the rank and file of the Freshwater/locals at Dover types) is basically pure religious/political authoritarianism. My paraphrase of how I interpret the attitude would be…

— harold

Of course that means that, while they may not personally believe that OECs and TEs are damned, they make it easier for the rank-and-file to believe that. So if Go is like they claim, encouraging that belief is just as bad if not worse than the belief itself. Since everyone seems to concentrate on Christians, I have to wonder if “Expelled” might have done a little better at the box office if they hadn’t chosen a Jewish spokesperson (Ben Stein). I mean, supposedly many of the rank-and-file think he’s just as dammed as us “Darwinists.”

It's interesting to see how Dembski's blog has become increasingly YEC, with a good dose of Birtherism and AGW thrown into the mix. Perhaps it's because the polarisation in US politics over the last few years: it's more important to nail one's colours to a clearly identifiable mast. The purpose seems to be to reinforce identity rather than to persuade the unindoctrinated.

it’s more important to nail one’s colours to a clearly identifiable mast